Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. The married couples allowance was steadily reduced under the previous Government. Indeed, it was Lord Lamont who did that, and at the time he was being advised by somebody—I think that it might have been the Leader of the Opposition. The problem is that the married couples allowance throws up all sorts of anomalies. For example, if the husband in a couple is killed in a tragic road accident, his widow and children will be left without support—so when we think through the consequence, we see that it brining back the allowance is not the right thing to do. Helping families with children, and the fact that the working families tax credit has lifted more than 600,000 children out of poverty, are things that we should keep in the front of our minds. All of us in the House say that we are concerned about cutting child poverty, and we have a target to do so. Our measures have helped to lift 600,000 children out of poverty, and that is why tax credits are so important to us.

George Osborne: I of course welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new job and wish him well in his post. It will be fun shadowing someone with whom I am actually on speaking terms— [ Interruption ]—for the moment, at least. Unlike most Chancellors, he cannot blame his predecessor for the undoubted mess that he has inherited, and there is no greater mess than the tax credits system and its administration. Will he confirm that the figures that he published 30 minutes ago show that that in 2005-06, the last year for which the Inland Revenue has published figures, it overpaid £1.7 billion of taxpayers' money and underpaid £549 million. That is well over £2 billion in mistaken payments that bring hardship to many hundreds of thousands of families, and, of course, cost the taxpayer dearly. Does the Chancellor accept, in his second week in the job, that that is a totally unacceptable scandal? Will he promise that the level of error and fraud will be reduced while he is Chancellor?

Personal Bankruptcies

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary this morning. He is going to have a meeting with the Wiltshire coroner, and it will not be in the autumn—it will be much sooner than that. On 17 June, when I was Justice Minister, I wrote to the Wiltshire coroner to invite him to meet officials in the Justice Department in order to ensure that delays did not build up. We had very bad delays building up in Oxfordshire, and when I was Justice Minister I took action with the Oxfordshire coroner to sort that very bad problem out. I said at the time that I was not prepared to see a similar problem arise in Wiltshire, and that remains the Government position. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice will not allow delays to arise.
	Hon. and right hon. Members are right to raise this issue, but I want to reassure the House that we will not let a backlog build up. So far as a statement is concerned, when I first raised this issue, I offered statements on a regular updating basis so that people could see all the inquests that were waiting to be heard. I updated that information at the end of last month. The situation has not changed materially since then, so I will not suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he issue another written statement. He will, however, meet the coroner in Wiltshire to assure himself that no more delays will build up.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in clause 6, page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
	No. 27, page 6, line 37, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'LSA 2000'.
	No. 28, in schedule 2, page 28, line 2, column 2 , at beginning insert—
	
		
			  'Section 2.'.

John Hayes: It is good to welcome the Minister back to his job, albeit in a new Department, and I look forward to exchanging various comments and ideas with him over the coming weeks and months, in the happy spirit that has pervaded our previous exchanges.
	I digress from that sentiment in no way by saying that the new clause and amendments seem to highlight a fundamental flaw in the Government's thinking. In a sense, the amendments prise open a gap between the Bill and the Government's strategy. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) was measured in her comments; she could have been altogether more direct. She might have asked why we were debating a Bill in isolation from the Government's approach to the Leitch review of skills. We still await the Government's response to that fundamental review, which, we think, will come out next week—it has been delayed three times already. We understand that one of the reasons for the delay was that the first draft was simply not up to scratch: one agency told me that it could have been written by a seven-year-old child with chicken pox.
	Given the paucity of the Government's approach and the delays suffered, it is unsurprising that we are debating in isolation a Bill that might contradict some of the Government's response to Leitch, and which certainly contradicts much of Leitch's analysis. The new clause and amendments relate to the departmental reorganisation and its implications for the LSC. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), asked the hon. Member for Brent, East what she thought about the LSC, and in doing so prompted the question of what the Government think about it. Leitch does not mention the LSC until about page 75 of his report, and then talks about further rationalisation in that body. We are not clear whether the Government see a long-term future and a central role for the LSC. We certainly do not know whether the Government's response will merely be to bolt on a new structure to the existing one. I suspect that we might end up with that, and that would be thoroughly unsatisfactory.
	As the hon. Lady said, the decision to create two new Departments to cover education and skills has significant implications for FE colleges because of the plan to route funding for 16-to-19 education via local authorities. That is what the new clause and amendments address.

John Hayes: Clauses 17 and 18 transfer and extend the power to intervene in FE colleges. Clause 17 transfers such power to the Learning and Skills Council, and clause 18 transfers it to Welsh Ministers. I have said today and previously that I celebrate the work of FE colleges, and it is not just me who takes this view. FE colleges do particularly well in Ofsted inspections: Ofsted deems 90 per cent. of such colleges to be satisfactory or better. Students report high levels of satisfaction—67 per cent. are either "very" or "extremely" satisfied with their experience of college life. We take pride in what those colleges have achieved in the years since they were incorporated.
	The Bill is a missed opportunity, however, to advance the agenda recommended by Sir Andrew Foster in his report. He argued that there should be less centralisation and a move towards greater self-regulation. Clauses 17 and 18 move in the opposite direction, however, to that recommended by Sir Andrew, whom the Government commissioned to consider these matters. We are disappointed that they feel that must extend the LSC's power to interfere in the life of colleges. Such micro-management is unhelpful and further diminishes the morale of those missioned to run and manage our colleges.
	Underperformance in the sector is rare, by Ofsted's and the Minister's own admission. Indeed, I challenged him on this point in Committee, and he agreed that FE colleges are doing a good job, for the most part. There is no evidence of growing problems, and no evidence that Ministers have had to use their existing powers to intervene in respect of college principals to deal with underperformance. Indeed, and as the Minister knows, when I asked him how often the Government had used those existing powers since they emerged in statute to sack college principals, he revealed that not once have they ever been used. The Government have never had to use them to interfere in the lives of colleges as a result of underperformance, yet they are seeking to extend them and to transfer them to the LSC. As I said, performance is deemed to be satisfactory or better in the overwhelming majority of colleges. Where it is not, we have been offered no evidence to suggest that that is due to inadequate leadership, or that the powers that the Government are seeking to create would be likely to solve the problem.
	We have reached the point where a sensible Minister—one who has listened and made concessions in respect of concerns expressed by Opposition politicians and third parties—is, frankly, dancing on the head of a pin. The powers are now so qualified as a result of his listening and responding that they are barely worth introducing at all. Ministers already have powers and if they choose to use them they can do so. There is no need for the detailed powers proposed. Of course, there must be accountability where public money is spent, and of course a long-stop power is needed, because the public interest is involved and we all want to ensure both rigour in respect of standards and probity in our colleges. The Minister is right to say that the standards are in learners' interests but, given that the existing powers have not been used, the concerns expressed in colleges about their extension and the lack of evidence that they would improve standards, I really do not understand why he insists on maintaining that part of the Bill and why he will not give way and accept the amendments.
	There is a particular issue about the powers being vested in the LSC. All the evidence is that there is too much regulation and too much micro-management in the lives of colleges. This is yet another statutory power over colleges, which sends out an important signal about how the Government see the future. We see the future in the shape of self-regulation, but the Government clearly do not, despite the fact that the Minister tells me he has a working party looking at just that subject. A working party is looking at how colleges can self-regulate, yet the Bill says they need to be regulated by a third party—they need a third party to decide not only whether their principal is up to the mark but whether their governors, senior managers and members of staff are up to the mark. Surely, in a mature organisation that is being well managed and led, those judgments are best made by people close to the action on the front line who understand the circumstances of their colleges and the needs of learners—the community of interests. I really do not see why the LSC, which when all is said and done is a quango, not a democratically elected body, and certainly not vested in the local community, should take those powers.
	I have one or two further questions—as if my previous words were not enough to damn the clause. First, the regulatory impact assessment states that there will be an additional burden on the LSC in terms of administering the new intervention strategy. The Minister is a diligent man and will have the figures to hand, so will he estimate the cost of that additional burden and tell us whether new staff will be involved to implement the strategy, whether existing staff will handle it, and how often he anticipates using it? He will have modelled those figures because that is the sort of man he is; he is a Minister who has done his work so he will have the answers for the House. What impact will the strategy have on existing staff, how much time will it take and what will it cost?
	Moreover, the Minister must have a notional view of how many colleges are in such a state that he expects the powers to be implemented. Does he expect the powers to be used regularly? What kind of colleges does he expect will be subject to the powers? He will have the details to hand—the number, and probably the names and addresses, of the colleges he expects to be first in the firing line of the new, draconian powers.
	Furthermore, what are the proposed savings in the Department for Education and Skills—although I should have called the Department by its new name—of transferring the intervention strategy to the LSC? There must be a concomitant saving and I am sure the Minister has those figures at his fingertips, too. How can we judge the effectiveness of powers that have never been used? Why do powers that have never been used need to be extended to college managers? I ask that question specifically because the provisions apply not just to principals but to other managers in colleges, too.
	Finally and definitively, once again I ask the Minister, as I have both privately and publicly, whether he expects the powers to be used more often once they have been transferred to the LSC. If he does not—he shakes his head—and as the existing powers have never been used, why should we waste any more time debating the clause? It should simply be struck out of the Bill. I commend the amendment to the House.

Sarah Teather: We debated clause 17 extensively in Committee, and subsequently I held some helpful meetings with the Minister's officials, for which I am grateful as they clarified some of my concerns. Nevertheless, I continue to be concerned about the clause, which is why I added my name to the amendment tabled by the Conservatives and why I tabled amendment No. 25.
	My objections in Committee, which continue, are, first, that I do not understand the point of the clause, particularly as the Secretary of State has never used the existing powers. Secondly, I am extremely uncomfortable about transferring such directive powers to an organisation that is in no way democratically accountable. Thirdly, although I appreciate the changes the Government have made to the clause and that it will not apply to teaching staff but only to staff at the most senior level of an organisation, I am extremely uncomfortable about giving the LSC powers to begin dismissal proceedings. I am not sure that is anything more than sleight of hand in terms of the powers the Government proposed originally.
	I now have a new objection to the clause, to which I referred earlier. We touched on the point in Committee when I reminded the Minister that for many colleges the LSC is not the sole funding partner at present. At some point in the future when the Government initiate the changes—presumably in two or three years' time—the LSC will no longer be a funding partner at all for many colleges. I remain disappointed that the Government are not willing to state on the record that they intend to change the clause when they bring in the changes to 16-to-19 funding. I understand the Minister's point; he wants to consult and he does not want to be hemmed into a corner. He will obviously need to consult on the detail of the proposal, but it seems blatantly illogical for him to continue to argue that the Government might ever want to retain the clause if they intend to transfer funding powers to local authorities. For that reason, I remain concerned about the clause, and hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance about a point that I have already raised several times today.

John Hayes: That confirms what I thought. As I say, I took a keen interest in this once it became clear that it was a more significant issue than most people had recognised. My Welsh colleagues, and Welsh Labour Members, identified this early on, as one would expect, but as soon as it was drawn to my attention I realised that it was a much more significant part of the Bill than most observers would have gathered at that early stage. I, too, have learned that there are colleges that would like to pursue this opportunity.
	In Committee, the then Minister said
	"FE colleges in Wales are not demanding degree-awarding powers." ——[Official Report, Further Education and Training Public Bill Committee, 14 June 2007; c. 140.]
	Yet in a letter to the Minister of State on 6 July, Fforwm stated:
	"This is patently not the case."
	It goes on:
	"Fforwm is strongly supportive of the principle that FE colleges in Wales with high numbers of HE learners which reach the rigorous quality procedures necessary for the validation of degrees and have a critical mass of students should have the power to award foundation degrees. This is the same position as in England, where most colleges will not wish to validate foundation degrees."
	The Opposition understood throughout consideration of the Bill that only a small number of colleges, at least at the beginning, will take advantage of this opportunity. It is absolutely right that colleges should have the capability and the capacity to do this properly. That is important from the perspective of learners and from the perspective of the degree brand. We are advocates of rigour and excellence. However, it may well be that colleges in Wales can meet those high standards, and it would be wrong to establish two systems—a Welsh system and an English system, the former without the opportunity to grow in the way that I have described and the latter able to do so. Colleges in Wales, and their representative organisation, clearly wish clause 19 to apply to both England and Wales. Fforwm says:
	"We do not consider it sensible to treat the two countries differently in this matter."
	The insertion of 'and Wales' in clause 19 after 'in England' would suffice for that purpose.
	Colleges in Wales feel that they have fallen between two constitutional stools—the law-making powers of Westminster and the devolved legal powers of the National Assembly for Wales. It is unfortunate that we have reached that point. I do not claim for a moment that it is the result of any ill will or malice, but it is important, even at this late stage, that Ministers recognise that this is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. I therefore hope that the Minister will, with a similar kind of alacrity and enthusiasm to that which I suggested was prevalent among Welsh educationists, adopt my amendment and so get himself of a rather deep hole.

Sarah Teather: I also raised that point in Committee and I thought it odd that we were neither giving the power to Welsh colleges to award degrees nor giving the permissive power to the Welsh Assembly to confer such powers on colleges. When I raised that point with the then Minister, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), he said that FE colleges were not demanding degree-awarding powers. It is now clear that that appears not to be the case. The briefing I have from Fforwm says that it believes that the door should not be shut so formally on the opportunity for colleges in Wales to award their own foundation degrees. The former Minister said that when Fforwm do their review of FE and HE in Wales they can bring forward proposals, and if there is a clear recommendation that Welsh colleges should be given that power, there will be an option to bring forward an Order in Council, which would be a time-consuming solution to the problem.
	It is frustrating to realise that part of the reason why there appears not to have been a clamour from Welsh colleges, or even representatives, is the confusion about what powers the Bill confers on the Welsh Assembly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) said a few moments ago, when the matter was discussed in the National Assembly's Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills Committee, the Minister there said that while she felt there was little need or demand for the provision, the Assembly had carte blanche under clause 27 to introduce provision for the awarding of foundation degrees at a later date. Initial legal advice taken during the Committee seemed to confirm that view. However, following the meeting, written advice suggested that clause 27 did not allow the Assembly to confer those functions on the Privy Council. That certainly seemed to be the understanding of the former Minister when we discussed the matter in Committee.
	We have an odd situation in that the Bill confers almost all the provisions for England on Wales, except the only interesting bit—the only bit that has got anyone excited. It is remiss that poor legislative scrutiny has led to Welsh colleges missing out on something that the Government believe to be very important for English colleges.

Chris Ruane: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a chance of that, but I hope that the messages that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary takes back to Cardiff will avert it. I look to him for reassurances on the amendment at the end of the debate.
	There is a political dimension to the statistics that I cited—I would not like to leave out politics. Denbighshire is Tory and Independent controlled and Wrexham is Liberal and Tory controlled. The same investment has not occurred in those two counties as has happened in Labour-controlled Flintshire. That is why the statistics show that Flintshire does well educationally for 11-year-olds and 16-year-olds. However, it fails for 18-year-olds. Hon. Members cited the letter from Fforwm—an establishment in Wales that has displayed a high-handed attitude. We have a term in Wales for the establishment and the great and good that often control institutions such as the BBC, other cultural institutions and the legal profession. It is "the crachach". It would disturb me greatly if the crachach in the HE sector held back and issued instructions to politicians to hold back because they wanted to preserve what they perceive as excellence in Welsh higher education.
	We have excellence in the HE sector in Wales. I went to Aberystwyth university, which is an excellent institution, while Cardiff university has the eighth best research department in the country. We have excellent institutions and it is not my aim to lessen that excellence. We also have excellence in FE institutions in Wales. I referred earlier to Llandrillo college, which is the largest educational institution in north Wales and one of the largest in the whole of Wales, with 23,000 students. It also has outreach colleges in Abergele, Rhyl, Denbigh and other locations, quite often in the poorest communities in the whole of Wales, including one located 100 yd away from the council estate where I grew up.
	We have excellence in our colleges. Llandrillo college received a grade 1 for each of the seven things on which it was inspected, the first college in the whole of Wales to achieve that. It is high-handed of HE in Wales to look down its nose at colleges such as Llandrillo. Indeed, if it looked at how that college is run it could learn a lot. I do not accept the argument from the National Assembly or HE in Wales that excellence will be lessened. We have to knock that one on the head.
	The second argument from Fforwm to which Opposition Members have referred was that there was an insufficient groundswell of opinion in the FE sector. Fforwm represents each and every FE institution in Wales and it has spoken, although too late as far as I am concerned—it should have told us what the issues were months ago. Fforwm speaks on behalf of the FE sector in the whole of Wales and it deserves to be listened to. I gave the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings the example of Llandrillo college, which has expressed an interest. I was on the phone this morning to the principal of that college, Huw Evans OBE, who was given his OBE because of his contribution to FE education. He definitely wants the award-making powers, and I believe that Coleg Menai in north Wales would like them, too.
	Two arguments have been put forward—the first about lessening excellence and the second that there is no groundswell of opinion—but I do not accept either of them. We have excellent colleges such as Llandrillo and Coleg Menai, as well as Deeside college, Northop horticultural college, Llysfasi agricultural college, Yale college, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), and others. Every one of them should be allowed the opportunity. The process is not easy—they have to go through screening to ensure that they have the quality to make such awards—but I support the stance of those institutions to get those powers.
	In conclusion, what reassurances can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give me that our voices will be listened to in Cardiff? He should take back the point that the process needs to be speeded up. If we leave it until September we might miss the boat for this year, and I would certainly like those award-making powers to be given to FE colleges in Wales within the next year to 18 months.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I rise to address the House for the first time outside Wales questions, I recall a slogan used by the Welsh Assembly Government—"The Learning Country". We are experiencing a learning process now. Certainly I am learning, but we are also learning how this system works. I hope that I shall be able to reassure Opposition Members and my colleagues about the way in which we expect it to work, and also to convey the view of the Welsh Assembly Government.
	I welcome this opportunity, and will attempt to live up to the reputation for "alacrity and enthusiasm" bestowed on me by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), who not only brought this Bill to its current stage but dealt with the Government of Wales Act 1998. He is due great credit for the role that he played over many months and years. I also note the interest in these matters shown by a number of Welsh Members. The Chamber is quite crowded today, particularly with Welsh and Labour Members.
	As has been said, amendment No. 23 would confer on the Privy Council power to specify further education institutions in Wales as competent to grant foundation degrees. Let me try to explain the rationale behind post-16 education in Wales, and explain why it is considered appropriate at this time. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will know, "Reaching Higher" is the Welsh Assembly Government's strategy for higher education, which recognises that Wales has a disproportionately larger number of small higher education institutions than England. The most effective way in which to meet learning need, achieve critical mass sufficient to reduce overhead costs and increase access for low-participation groups—mentioned by a number of Members—was for Wales to develop integrated networks and clusters of colleges, including both higher education and further education institutions with shared missions to deliver higher education.
	That focus on networked planning and collaborative delivery is far more than mere partnership delivery. "Reaching Higher" emphasised the importance of establishing geographical or function-based clusters of colleges with shared missions. That approach is intended to open up a wider range of opportunities for learners through the sharing of resources such as staff, equipment and infrastructure. As "Reaching Higher" pointed out, Wales is too small a country for any institution to work purely in isolation.
	In 2003 a KPMG report on relations between higher and further education institutions, commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, drew attention to the significant costs that would be faced by further education colleges in Wales that sought independently to set up the infrastructure associated with the provision of higher education on a directly funded basis. England has a large mixed economy of further education colleges; Wales, at this moment, does not. The KPMG report concluded:
	"Any expansion of higher education in further education provision in Wales should be undertaken through the franchising route."
	Such an approach offered cost-effectiveness and economies of scale in areas such as curriculum development. Its success in meeting the needs of Wales has been highlighted by the findings of a further recent independent study of the delivery of foundation degree in Wales. In a report produced in March this year, the independent consultants SQW pointed out that there was limited support from Welsh higher education and further education institutions for the possibility of granting FE colleges power to award their own foundation degrees.
	The representation of Fforwm is relevant here. I will deal with some of the comments about that later, but I will say now that we are aware of certainly two, perhaps three, further education colleges in Wales that are keen on such a possibility. We are not sure of the exact number—it may be one, two or three—but the vast majority are not clamouring for it. I appreciate the role that Fforwm plays in representing the views of the FE sector, but there is not an overwhelming clamour from FE colleges to provide such a power.

John Hayes: There is no overall clamour from colleges in England either. No one expects there to be a plethora of colleges in the first wave that grant foundation degrees and, just as in England, it is likely that a small number of colleges in Wales would be willing and able to do so. He uses the terms HE and FE as if they were interchangeable when he describes the enthusiasm to pursue this opportunity. I suspect that the views of the sectors might be rather different.

Sarah Teather: Amendments Nos. 24, 6 and 7 deal with two things we discussed extensively during Committee: progression arrangements from foundation degrees and franchising. I acknowledge that the Government have moved considerably on both of these points, through changes made in the other place, amendments introduced by the Government in Committee and reassurances we got from the Minister during that process. Amendment No. 24 appears to be a helpful addition, and I would be interested to hear the Government's response to it. They moved considerably on this point, recognising the concerns that were shared by hon. Members throughout the House that foundation degrees ought to provide enough flexibility for students to progress to higher education or professional qualifications, and enough flexibility to ensure that they are not boxed in and forced to do one or the other—it can be a stand-alone qualification. The amendment would appear to include a number of things that the Government seem willing to concede, according to guidance and comments on the record. If the Minister wishes to reject it, I shall be interested to know why.
	It is helpful to have something written from institutions to state that they have ongoing progression routes between FE and whatever professional bodies or, according to the course, HE institutions that they are working with. One of the things we debated at some length in Committee was the tendency for those arrangements to be quite fluid, and for them to break down. The concern for a student going through the foundation degree stage is that they do not want to end up in a situation where those arrangements have broken down, and the safeguards do not come into play for a year or two. After that, students will certainly have left that institution. The safeguards are there for a particular individual and not the system as a whole. I await the Minister's response on that before deciding how we shall respond.
	The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) has tabled two amendments on franchising. Again, we debated that at length in Committee. The power to award foundation degrees is substantially different from that to franchise. In Committee, I asked why the Government wanted colleges to be allowed to franchise, and I was never entirely satisfied with the answer. I understand all the arguments about awarding foundation degrees but I never felt confident about the Government's response to the question of why we needed to allow colleges to franchise. The Minister said that it was because he did not want a two-tier system but we already have a multiple-tier system. Higher education institutions franchise the power to award foundation degrees. Further education institutions can now award such powers. We will end up with a system of three or four tiers if we include the proposed new power.
	However, in Committee, the Minister reassured me that he would change the guidance on foundation degrees so that, after the probation period, the decision about whether colleges will be allowed to confer foundation degrees will be separated from the decision about whether they can franchise other colleges to use the same power. I was greatly reassured by that, especially when the Minister then wrote to all members of the Committee to repeat the assurance. I look forward to reading the revised guidance because that assurance dealt with most of my concerns. He never quite answered the question about why he wanted franchising in the first place. I hope that will be clear when he replies to the hon. Member for City of Durham. However, the decision to separate franchising from that to award foundation degrees assuaged most of my concerns.

Jeremy Wright: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), with whom I substantially agree. I join him in welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) to his new responsibilities.
	I want to pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry left off, with a point about the assurances that I hope the Minister will be able to give us. I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) that what commends amendment No. 24 is its ability to deliver substantial reassurance to students who wish to take foundation degrees at institutions that have newly been given the power to award them. I accept that not every student taking a foundation degree will wish to go on and complete a further course of study, but a great many will. If this experiment—for that is what it is—is to work, it is vital that every student who receives a foundation degree from one of these institutions and wishes to go on to further study should have the maximum reassurance that they will be able to do so when the time comes.
	I hope that the Minister will accept that there is a world of difference between an institution setting out what it proposes to do to arrange for the continuation of study, and actually making those arrangements. Those are two very different things, and they would have a very different effect on the reassurances that could be made available to students. Amendment No. 24 seeks to ensure that those arrangements will be made. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings is proposing to strengthen the Government's noble intentions in order to ensure that foundation degrees newly awarded by further education institutions will be successful and command the support and confidence of the students who take them. For that reason, I fully support what he has said.

Bill Rammell: There are two responses to that. First, we genuinely want as much innovation and flexibility as possible in order to respond to the needs of students. Saying as an article of faith that it would be wrong in all circumstances for a very high-quality performing FE institution to allow franchising at whatever stage might restrict the dispersal of quality foundation degrees. That would be one cause for concern. Secondly, students might well perceive a diminution in the long-term credibility of their FE institutions if they were told that all the other institutions in all the other sets of circumstances were able to award their own degrees and to franchise, but that that did not apply to theirs. That would create a two-tier structure, which would not be to anyone's benefit.
	Subsections (5A) and (6A) were added by the Government amendment in response to the debate in the other place in order to allow the Privy Council to restrict franchising. It is expected that when an FE institution is granted powers for the first time, the Privy Council will make an order that specifies two restrictions, preventing the FE institution from authorising other institutions to grant awards on its own behalf and preventing the institution from granting a foundation degree to any student who was not enrolled at the institution at the time of completing the course of study for which the award is made. That represents a significant departure from precedent in respect of degree-awarding powers, but it is appropriate to offer such a safeguard. Those restrictions will be particularly appropriate when foundation degree-awarding powers are first granted. As I said earlier, however, I do not agree that it is either appropriate or necessary to impose such restrictions automatically and for all time.
	The independent report of foundation degree-awarding powers will also be published within four years and it will also look into the issue of franchising. It is also the case that any FE institution granted foundation degree-awarding powers will be subject to regular monitoring under the Quality Assurance Agency's ongoing quality assurance cycle. Failure by an FE institution to guarantee quality standards for its foundation degrees, irrespective of where the provision is delivered, could lead to intervention by the QAA, which is a serious sanction.
	With these proposals, we are not saying that the ability of an FE institution to franchise its foundation degrees should definitely be ruled in at any particular stage; equally, however, the power to franchise should not, in my view, be ruled out for ever. That is the key point at issue here. We have struck the right balance between flexibility and quality control in our proposals. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
	Amendment No. 24, tabled by the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), addresses the issues around progression from a foundation degree to a course of more advanced study. Although I rightly welcomed the hon. Member for Windsor to the Front Bench, I recognise that he has come to these deliberations late. If he looks at the Committee  Hansard, he will see that the criteria have been made clear and explicit. He cannot credibly claim that progression is put at risk by the safeguards that have been put in place, and he certainly cannot claim that the Government have been reluctant or are dragging their feet. He asked why, if progression was so important, it was not on the face of the Bill. I must inform him that a provision was inserted in Committee, at clause 19(5)(2B)(a), which gives significant reassurance on the issues that he raises.
	Amendment No. 24, as crafted, is similar to the Government amendment made to the clause in Committee, except that it seeks to place certain additional requirements on institutions entering into progression agreements. In that respect, it is too prescriptive. In Committee, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and I argued that colleges that are performing well should be given the freedom to fulfil their potential free from the constraints of over-regulation and excessive bureaucracy. I am confident that the amendment already made to address the issue of progression, working together with the non-statutory guidance and criteria, achieves the balance that all Members want. Under the Government amendment made in Committee, in order to grant foundation degree-awarding powers to an FE institution, the Privy Council must first have received a statement from that institution setting out how it proposes to secure opportunities for progression to at least one course of more advanced study for any person awarded one of its foundation degrees. The Privy Council will also need to consider that the proposals are satisfactory and likely to be carried out before it can grant foundation degree-awarding powers.

Question put, That the amendment be made :—
	 The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 261.

John Hayes: I would make two points in response to my hon. Friend's typically incisive intervention. First, his reputation will never fade in the hearts and homes of South Holland and the Deepings for all the time that I am the representative of that place in this place. Secondly, he is right to focus on the difference that further education can make to people who have not always had the most successful experience at school. Many people return to education through FE or adult and community learning—continuing learning of the kind that I described. It is vitally important that we see further education not merely as a vehicle for delivering skills to the existing work force, although it is vital, given the demography, that we upskill and reskill our work force in order to meet the skills target; and not merely as a vehicle for equipping a new generation of young people with essential vocational skills—I shall speak more of that in what will be a lengthy peroration in a few moments—but as an opportunity for people to acquire all kinds of other competencies that add to their sense of worth, for the acquisition of practical skills can achieve that just as much as the acquisition of academic qualifications. For too long in this country, we have undervalued those practical competencies and elevated academic learning as the only means of delivering the sense of value to which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry alludes.
	In speaking about what the Bill says, rather than what it does not, I would like to talk about its unhelpful aspects. I do so with hesitation because I do not want to be unkind to the Minister, having praised him earlier. I do not want to injure him in any way—he is a sensitive soul—but it is important to point out that the Bill may be unhelpful both in respect of the intervention powers we debated at some length in Committee, which he and I have discussed privately a number of times, and of the lack of clarity about the ongoing role of the Learning and Skills Council.
	I shall explore those two matters for a moment or two. We had a lengthy debate about the first point earlier, so I will just say the following. In the end, it seems unconvincing for the Government to argue that they are in favour of Andrew Foster's recommendation that FE colleges move to greater self-regulation, while simultaneously arguing that the LSC should have new powers to dismiss college governors, principals and senior managers. Of course, it is right that long-line powers are vested in Government when public money is being spent, to ensure that in cases of an absence of quality or probity an intervention takes place. In the interests of learners, as the Minister said earlier, we all want to protect people against such circumstances.
	However, I am not convinced that those powers, which have never been used—I repeat, they have never been used—although already in the hands of the Secretary of State, should be extended and transferred to the Learning and Skills Council. I simply do not buy that that is not paradoxical, and nothing that the Minister has said today, previously or in Committee has persuaded me one iota of the strength of his case. It may be that the Association of Colleges has come to a different view about that—I respect it, and I have had many dealings with it, as has the Minister—but I am not yet convinced. We need to test the matter further, and I look forward to seeing what the other place has to say about it when it considers the Bill following our consideration.
	The second unhelpful aspect of the Bill is the embedding of the role of the Learning and Skills Council at a time when we are not sure of the Government's position on the future of the LSC. If they respond to Lord Leitch's review in the way that they might, which is to say that sector skills councils should be the principal conduit for the management and funding of skills, and they respond to his recommendation that we move to a more demand-led system with employers in the driving seat, that at the very least means a different role for the LSC, and it may mean a diminished role. However, the Bill, by developing and enshrining in law a regional structure, effectively embeds the Learning and Skills Council in the management and funding of skills. I am not sure whether that it is sensible. Again, it arises from the extraordinary position whereby we are debating a further education and training measure against the background of a review of skills to which the Government have yet to respond. That is not good government and I do not believe that the Minister, in his heart, thinks it is either. Hon. Members of all parties who have spoken to me about the matter expressed reservations about the Government's conduct.
	Those reservations were expressed loudly and with Celtic lyricism when it came to the matter of Wales. Given the contributions from some of the House's distinguished Members, we can conclude only that, as far as Wales is concerned, the matter has not been handled as it could and should have been. The argument that pre-legislative scrutiny would have been beneficial to clarify the position on degree-awarding powers and Welsh colleges was clear and unequivocal. It is an unanswerable case and so the answer that we got was as unconvincing as could be.
	The Bill therefore has unhelpful aspects, but let me consider the more promising elements, about which there has been broad agreement. Perhaps the most significant aspect is the extension to FE colleges of the power to award foundation degrees. That lies at the heart of the measure. Conservative Members passionately believe that FE colleges provide an important element of widening participation, not only in further education but in higher education. It is understated that further education institutions teach a great deal of higher education. They teach many degree course, and approximately 12 per cent. of higher education already takes place in further education colleges. Foundation degrees provide an opportunity to widen and deepen participation in a new and exciting way.

Bill Rammell: Our discussion on Third Reading has been an important one. I should start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes): he was doing a service in delivering his insightful and lengthy contribution, as today is his 10th wedding anniversary and he needs to leave the House. He has demonstrated great commitment.
	I welcome the support that the hon. Gentleman has given to foundation degree awarding powers. Members in all parts of the House—I include Liberal Democrat Members—have engaged constructively; we have witnessed this House operating at its best, in that we took on an initial proposition and then worked at it and scrutinised the proposals as they have progressed. We have ended up with what I genuinely believe is the most significant element of the Bill.
	We must ensure that there is as much innovation and creativity as possible to help us face up to the skills challenge at the higher levels. Highly performing FE colleges have a significant contribution to make, and enabling them to award their own foundation degrees is a positive step forward. We have also been able to ensure that there is progression from foundation degrees on to further study courses, where that is appropriate and the student concerned wishes it. We have made it abundantly clear that there is a strong, robust and coherent quality framework within which these qualifications will exist. On the hon. Gentleman's point about higher education in that regard, universities have nothing to fear from these proposals. The market is expanding significantly. Today, there are some 61,000 foundation degrees; by the end of the decade, we will be moving toward 100,000 and beyond. So there is certainly enough business for universities and FE colleges, and in my view, many of them will continue to work productively in collaboration.
	The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about what is happening to adult learner numbers. We need to be clear that there has never been as much money going into the system as there is today. Overall, FE funding during the last decade has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms. I do not wish to make a crude party political point, but I will. That compares very favourably with the 14 per cent. real-terms cut in the five years to 1997. Here, we should consider not just revenue, but capital expenditure. When this Government came to power in 1997, there was not one penny in the mainstream capital budget for FE. Today, the budget is £500 million a year, and we can see the evidence of that in virtually every FE college throughout the country.
	So more money is certainly going into the system, but we do have to make real choices about priorities. We are not cutting adult education funding, but we are re-prioritising, saying that adult basic skills and work-based training—such as the train-to-gain initiative—has to be the priority. We are putting extra resources into those areas, but we are not saying that non-vocational adult education is not valuable. However, we are saying that we expect the individual to make a slightly greater contribution.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings nods, and there is indeed a consensus on this issue. We need to bring about a cultural change that ensures that individuals contribute more to their learning, and that employers do as well. I am very pleased to say that this week we launched the basic skills campaign, using major TV, radio and other forms of advertising to get across to people the message about the importance of skills, and the investment and commitment that they make as individuals.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Leitch implementation plan—the Government's response to Sandy Leitch's important and ground-breaking report. I made it clear earlier and I reiterate that we will produce our response to Sandy Leitch's proposals very shortly. I repeat: nothing in this Bill contradicts the strategy that we are putting forward. Many times today and in Committee, the hon. Gentleman has tried to make great play of that issue, but when we launch the implementation plan, he will see that it is absolutely coherent and consistent with the measures in the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman also questioned me about the powers of intervention—an issue on which we have had a major debate this afternoon. He wanted me to make it clear that the Government are committed to FE colleges, and we certainly are. Indeed, we are committed to the FE sector in a way that no previous Government ever were. He also asked me to make it clear that we want greater independence and self-regulation for colleges, and we certainly do, which is why we are introducing the proposals on self-regulation. He also wanted me to commit ourselves, following the Leitch proposals, to a further series of bold measures and steps, which we certainly will.
	We are therefore responding to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, and we want to move much further in the direction of self-regulation. However, and as I said earlier, at the same time, in extremis, when all else has failed, it is absolutely right that we retain, through the Learning and Skills Council, powers of intervention. As I said earlier, if Opposition Members discovered that a college in their constituency was fundamentally failing and were told that there was no power of intervention in those circumstances, they would not be happy with that. That is why the proposals in the Bill are so important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) made an important contribution. I genuinely pay tribute to the work he has done as joint chair of the all-party further education and lifelong learning group. He has been an absolute champion—
	 It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [21 May].
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Mark Fisher: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position and I am grateful to him for his concern about this case. When he considers the lessons to be learned, will he be minded to consider the use of restraint generally? As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said, 3,000 occurrences in a year is not acceptable. My right hon. Friend will know, even two weeks into the job, that 10 young people have committed suicide in young offenders institutions over the past two years. Something is going wrong with the way that young people are being looked after in many such institutions. Gareth's death—a most extreme and horrific example—highlights the failures in the system. Surely 10 suicides is an unacceptable state of affairs.